Mechanics of the Dialectical Landscape

Sunday, March 27, 2016

Building the Spatio-Temporal as Inclusive to Information Technology Environments:

The continuation of virtual designs strategizes behavior in time through psychological interaction in more intimate ways of building design. The intellectual use of computer generated, delivered 3D information, influences purpose-focused inclusion into the designer-builder aspects of cross-disciplines. A deeper intrinsic temporal understanding of environments is felt in the virtual, towards humanistic traits of the future place being developed. The further this exercise is introduced into mainstream constructibility methods, the greater the propensity for obedience around delivering a successful (BIM) building information model.
The relevancy of spatio-temporal schematics provide constructive imprints in computerized platforms.  This file set, supplicates physical work often from participatory involvement in producing drawings.  Production personnel, in architecture, engineering, and construction, involved with building information infrastructure, (as models) impulses the cognitive drawing sets.  These are mandated into the process, which starts often (but not exclusively) in architectural design networks. These may or may not have been delivered by the clients desires, partially developed from hand sketches, digital camera feeds, or lifework developed on tablets, or laptop computers. Structures are built within robotics and adaptive formats. Simultaneously, family classifications gives objectivity to the design being envisioned. The packaged parametric behavior is this made into BIM commodity. These related “components” are vastly shaped by the parametric confluences often of cyber materials representative of associative product models. This leads to a question:
In socially democratized designs, where computer modeling softwares are freely and holistically capable of interacting, do parametric designs foster better space vs. time persistance? That is, are the relationships brighter and bolder wishing the team celebration towards an executed BIM model, vs. the virtually augmentative? Is there bias in a BIM model when averaged out over the overall life cycle of a building?  The temporal nature of a BIM model is locked up in less physical production of the "drawn".  Is this the best practice?
What research further compiles the assertion that BIM technology is necessary to future sustainability and human happiness within better design? Within certain criteria, there are gaps, but there has also been much written about acceptance of Building Information Modeling.
A researcher, Jennifer Whyte, in 2012 published a paper addressing the policies and practices of BIM technology and the implications for its processes.  She relates several of the criteria from the UK task force studies on BIM: Her paper(s) in cooperation with others assert that BIM use (as per their literature) highlight parallels within the profession of architecture, but also transcends into a wider vision and appreciation by multi-faceted disciplines professionally embedded in the design of the built environment (Whyte, 2012).
This writer in fact has blogged from time to time about the perceptional values and has attempted to study the impressions made by the "emergent - and - disruptive" technologies utilized in AEC functions.   More importantly, the tools associated within a paradigm shift are to be a definitive catalog mirrored unto the industry, and valued assumptions are qualitative collected towards techno blogs, and respective jargon...
In Whyte's studies, the use within the term "generic" studies is a stipulation addressing that we only know as much as what we have collected through opinions and character studies of project managers and departmental focuses on design deliverable.  Yet, the 2012 study demonstrates the value of studying how BIM relates to all aspects and phases of design, in the UK.
Whether it's in the UK, NZ, Australasia, or anywhere for that matter - the purpose of a technological time-space continuum is to serve some purpose towards predictability.  If a digital document can do that, then it mustn't be denied because of generational gaps.  The greatest predictable measure of many technologies is that they'll obselete-tize themselves faster than we can keep pace.  A building designed within the framework of a BIM program can keep up with this pace, and invariably soluble to its measure of the information.  Especially with the greater use of high density laser scanning, done within surveying of each and every as-built volume, the line of building information technology is even blurred as to what an production expert may have modeled 10 years ago.  The applicability of vivid chronologies gets catalogued at the speed of light.
To be continued...
Whyte, J. (2012) Building Information Modelling in 2012: Research Challenges    
        Contributions, Opportunities, Design Innovation Research Centre working            
        paper 5, [version  number].

Friday, September 28, 2007

BIM Splitting: Splitting BIM

Gordon Matta-Clark has been a favorite artist of mine for several years. He's often been an inspiration for looking at design and construction from various psychological ways. To me, his message is peculiar in relation to the world of digital architecture because he's often known with dissociatively connecting architectural space with data, while simultaneously disconnecting the architectural chronologies of its own pathos. I draw attention to this because this author feels it is appropriately paradoxical to contrast his sentiments with our present day pursuits in construction (and de-construction) technology. It's exactly what I feel the current Building Information Modeling movement should hearken, and carry beyond mere technological tangibility, or standard AECO practice, over the next ten years.

Or, perhaps this is what I'm preoccupied with attempting myself - and I'm using something from Matta-Clark's exercises to define this sentiment from a Virtual Design and Construction stance.

Ever since being a pre-architecture student at School of Visual Arts, in Manhattan, and being exposed to both his and James Wines’ work, I recognized these exercises as a kind of symbology to address both designing, and design criticism. Learning this as a 26 year old sculpture student was a profound experience - via several instructors (some of whom were brought up in architecture families, or received professional architecture degrees of their own.)

While this blog may serve as a somewhat biographical and tangential exercise: as a current Building Information Modeling (BIM) practitioner, I sometimes can’t help but feel a virtual connection to his renown performance, Splitting, from 1974, done in Englewood, NJ (especially when "splitting" a 3D model from within a BIM program.)

In case you’ve never heard of this artist (non-architect; or anarchitect,) Matta-Clark (1943-1978) was a ground breaking “de-constructivist” who executed intricate carvings out of readymade architecture (buildings) that were (most often) soon to be demolished. His best known works were created, internationally, over a period of 10 years - between 1968 and 1977.

How ironic that, today, with all of our latest computer architecture technology, BIM somehow fits into the concept of de-constructivist theory and contextualization.

Because the very solution that all “modeled information”, with BIM technology, may now be that which is virtually carved, sliced, chopped, dissected, examined; and as tangibly as Gordon Matta-Clark might have chosen to do so (from within real situations): takes his method into the cyber-realm. Or, at least, this is how I feel.

Could these exercises have also come from his practical sense of addressing traditional drafting techniques and practice while breaking down "real space"? Was he making renovations of "the virtual" while being inside the reality of his own design, carving; sculpting within the core? Was he thinking similarly, then, to how progressive CAD programs allow users to operate now? In terms of virtual decon - I would argue yes to both.

This is why I feel he was performing autonomous "computerized" methods as an extension of his cuttings. Some may say this is speculative and not well grounded, or well suited for "art" theory. Whatever the case, there are still arguments to be made, comparatively (with technology), beyond the archetypes of his accomplishments and imagination.

I feel BIM contemplates design and construction somewhere between the technology of CAD and his mind's eye. BIM is Post-CAD.

It’s almost as though this renegade artist had foreshadowed the future of digital architectural design (process) from within an inert virtual architectural psyche: dealing with the deep contemplations of architectural vicissitudes, way before modern reception. Usually he's been considered as doing this within the socioeconomic context of blighted neighborhoods, while exercising more artistic or poetic commentary. Yet, had he still been alive today, these works may have also had vast implications for digital-socio-ecological reasoning, architectural forensics, sustainability, forecasting for adaptive reuse projects, etc.

This possibly proves that (as was sometimes suspected) he might have been a visionary to modern computer architecture – as well as being a prolific artist working in the medium of architecture; on the fringes of an inept society.

Several bloggers have been writing effusively on the subject of Building Information Modeling. But while not all architectural circles agree that BIM technology is a viable resource, [enough that it should even be widely accepted (as often Matta-Clark's renegade behavior was not)] the indications that BIM is, in fact, gaining ground (as phenomenological methodology), fastidiously overrides conservative ferment that it is "shear nonsense". The splitting taking the foreground [place] shall not be the same Splitting that’s archaic to the fact-of-the-matter divisiveness. Cultural splits are never what they automatically appear as, and that can make huge imprints on our minds because they haunt us with unearthed truths about autonomous technological advancement.

It should come as no surprise that preeminent architect, Frank O. Gehry, who has been on the forefront of BIM technology, is also widely influenced by Matta-Clark.

Like those recognized, who’ve staked their own place within a design theory, the fragments of these findings are usually only initially visible to a select few: my advisors at SVA, for instance. But, as in art and design, as well as in controversial technologies, simple forms can delight and surprise and reflect the very nature of why we perform in such ways. Recently I visited the Gordon Matta-Clark: You are the Measure retrospective at the Whitney Museum, last spring. I was delighted that the New York Times chose to state at the top of their March 3, 2007 article; that it "should be required viewing for any architect born in the age of the computer screen." This confirmed exactly what I walked away feeling, after attending the exhibit (twice).

Splitting progressive CAD is an extensively tough-love (labor-of-love) task. However, there are parallels that, while seemingly are far-off, ostensibly, make perfect sense when looking beyond archaic CAD pragmatism. BIM is what's most progressive now and is splitting into more diverse movements and systems, interoperably , especially under the microscope of its own palpability: as it stands now.

Perhaps exemplary pieces of art, as Matta-Clark's Splitting, offer reflective qualities in ways only a select few in progressive digital architecture may appreciate. To those modeling with BIM, who exist in the here and now, it’s great to have digital 3D parametric houses compiled and recognized as offerings to their own prodigal examinations. For others, it's still just a house divided.